That Lunancy from the Greens in Full...
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Hoofy said:
f
k me.
There were one or two ideas which sounded good but it was like trying to find a packet of crisps in a sea of sewage.
k me.There were one or two ideas which sounded good but it was like trying to find a packet of crisps in a sea of sewage.
Breastfeeding is best. See p3
It reminds me of the original reason why I thought the Green Party were a bunch of clowns. When I was at school in 1989, a Green Party rep visited us to give a talk. The only thing I remembered was that she mentioned the idea of job sharing so everyone would work part-time, sharing jobs, which would end unemployment. I see from the OP that things haven't changed one bit.
A little of what the greens are concerned about is valid, as another poster has said, we only live on one planet, and a number of resources will probably come to an economic end in our lifetimes - if we carry on using them (and increasing to use them) at the current rate. Oil (?), nickel, uranium to state but 3.
But these green policies appear to drive us very hard back to the technological and economic dark ages. With the desire to have the business fairy’s bottomless pit of cash pay for everything, its most unlikely that the business fairy’s new technology will occur to reduce the potential “running out” mentioned above, IMHO it simply wouldn’t happen.
Some of what is stated as their policy appears to be a world as a place to live dreamt up by small children. Human nature just isn’t like that.
What is never mentioned by the greens and their ilk, what is their end game? When do they stop? When do they feel they have achieved enough? What is the down side of their policy? If they don’t know what the down side will be, they sure as hell won’t have given much thought to the upside either. It will be The Law of Unintended Consequences running riot.
I personally would like to see the CV’s of those writing this policy stuff.
And for those who are concerned about oil running out, energy policy, and how the world of energy may well work in the future, I urge you all to read this:-
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/boo...
Don’t worry it’s not green claptrap- the science and the numbers are easy to understand, and it’s a very good read.
But these green policies appear to drive us very hard back to the technological and economic dark ages. With the desire to have the business fairy’s bottomless pit of cash pay for everything, its most unlikely that the business fairy’s new technology will occur to reduce the potential “running out” mentioned above, IMHO it simply wouldn’t happen.
Some of what is stated as their policy appears to be a world as a place to live dreamt up by small children. Human nature just isn’t like that.
What is never mentioned by the greens and their ilk, what is their end game? When do they stop? When do they feel they have achieved enough? What is the down side of their policy? If they don’t know what the down side will be, they sure as hell won’t have given much thought to the upside either. It will be The Law of Unintended Consequences running riot.
I personally would like to see the CV’s of those writing this policy stuff.
And for those who are concerned about oil running out, energy policy, and how the world of energy may well work in the future, I urge you all to read this:-
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/boo...
Don’t worry it’s not green claptrap- the science and the numbers are easy to understand, and it’s a very good read.
bucksmanuk said:
A little of what the greens are concerned about is valid, as another poster has said, we only live on one planet, and a number of resources will probably come to an economic end in our lifetimes - if we carry on using them (and increasing to use them) at the current rate. Oil (?), nickel, uranium to state but 3.
But these green policies appear to drive us very hard back to the technological and economic dark ages. With the desire to have the business fairy’s bottomless pit of cash pay for everything, its most unlikely that the business fairy’s new technology will occur to reduce the potential “running out” mentioned above, IMHO it simply wouldn’t happen.
Some of what is stated as their policy appears to be a world as a place to live dreamt up by small children. Human nature just isn’t like that.
What is never mentioned by the greens and their ilk, what is their end game? When do they stop? When do they feel they have achieved enough? What is the down side of their policy? If they don’t know what the down side will be, they sure as hell won’t have given much thought to the upside either. It will be The Law of Unintended Consequences running riot.
I personally would like to see the CV’s of those writing this policy stuff.
And for those who are concerned about oil running out, energy policy, and how the world of energy may well work in the future, I urge you all to read this:-
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/boo...
Don’t worry it’s not green claptrap- the science and the numbers are easy to understand, and it’s a very good read.
But these green policies appear to drive us very hard back to the technological and economic dark ages. With the desire to have the business fairy’s bottomless pit of cash pay for everything, its most unlikely that the business fairy’s new technology will occur to reduce the potential “running out” mentioned above, IMHO it simply wouldn’t happen.
Some of what is stated as their policy appears to be a world as a place to live dreamt up by small children. Human nature just isn’t like that.
What is never mentioned by the greens and their ilk, what is their end game? When do they stop? When do they feel they have achieved enough? What is the down side of their policy? If they don’t know what the down side will be, they sure as hell won’t have given much thought to the upside either. It will be The Law of Unintended Consequences running riot.
I personally would like to see the CV’s of those writing this policy stuff.
And for those who are concerned about oil running out, energy policy, and how the world of energy may well work in the future, I urge you all to read this:-
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/boo...
Don’t worry it’s not green claptrap- the science and the numbers are easy to understand, and it’s a very good read.
Indeed. Just because the Green Party has apparently taken leave of its senses does not mean that many 'green' or environmental issues are not important.A powerful and influential green lobby is a vital part of any modern society, and it's a complete tragedy in my view that because the Greens are plainly mad the reaction by many is to discount the importance of sensible environmental management policies. You've only got to look at some of the appalling ecological damage being done in China as a result of unconstrained economic activity to understand.
bucksmanuk said:
A little of what the greens are concerned about is valid, as another poster has said, we only live on one planet, and a number of resources will probably come to an economic end in our lifetimes - if we carry on using them (and increasing to use them) at the current rate. Oil (?), nickel, uranium to state but 3.
But these green policies appear to drive us very hard back to the technological and economic dark ages. With the desire to have the business fairy’s bottomless pit of cash pay for everything, its most unlikely that the business fairy’s new technology will occur to reduce the potential “running out” mentioned above, IMHO it simply wouldn’t happen.
Some of what is stated as their policy appears to be a world as a place to live dreamt up by small children. Human nature just isn’t like that.
What is never mentioned by the greens and their ilk, what is their end game? When do they stop? When do they feel they have achieved enough? What is the down side of their policy? If they don’t know what the down side will be, they sure as hell won’t have given much thought to the upside either. It will be The Law of Unintended Consequences running riot.
I personally would like to see the CV’s of those writing this policy stuff.
And for those who are concerned about oil running out, energy policy, and how the world of energy may well work in the future, I urge you all to read this:-
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/boo...
Don’t worry it’s not green claptrap- the science and the numbers are easy to understand, and it’s a very good read.
No chance of Uranium running out. There is thousands of years worth available to extract, and even more Thorium after that. But these green policies appear to drive us very hard back to the technological and economic dark ages. With the desire to have the business fairy’s bottomless pit of cash pay for everything, its most unlikely that the business fairy’s new technology will occur to reduce the potential “running out” mentioned above, IMHO it simply wouldn’t happen.
Some of what is stated as their policy appears to be a world as a place to live dreamt up by small children. Human nature just isn’t like that.
What is never mentioned by the greens and their ilk, what is their end game? When do they stop? When do they feel they have achieved enough? What is the down side of their policy? If they don’t know what the down side will be, they sure as hell won’t have given much thought to the upside either. It will be The Law of Unintended Consequences running riot.
I personally would like to see the CV’s of those writing this policy stuff.
And for those who are concerned about oil running out, energy policy, and how the world of energy may well work in the future, I urge you all to read this:-
http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/boo...
Don’t worry it’s not green claptrap- the science and the numbers are easy to understand, and it’s a very good read.
otolith said:
I have a lot of sympathy with many environmental issues, but I will never vote for the Greens while they are carrying so much far left ideological baggage. I don't see what any of it has to do with protecting the environment.
Precisely. The Green Party have long been the home for the extreme left, since Socialism became a dirty word and the Labour Party lurched to the centre. The "environment" is just an exercise in image marketing. You don't need to scratch very deep or consider their polices very long to discover that the well being of the environment is not their primary goal. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc have all been hijacked by the far left. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded IMHO.Gaspode said:
A powerful and influential green lobby is a vital part of any modern society, and it's a complete tragedy in my view that because the Greens are plainly mad the reaction by many is to discount the importance of sensible environmental management policies.
The Greens are in charge in Brighton, they come bottom of the league in the UK for recycling... The problem is that the Greens mislead people by their name.We will always have a powerful and influential green lobby and don't need a party for it, as regardless of party, most people will have a environmental consciousness and in a given decision aim not to hurt nature.
China will settle down, as will India. Large proportions of their inhabitants want to up their living standards and want it now, so it is inevitable that they are going to cause a mess to get there just like the western world did prior. So short of paying them not to (like rainforest protection) you can't really do much but wait for their middle classes to grow.
Gaspode said:
A powerful and influential green lobby is a vital part of any modern society, and it's a complete tragedy in my view that because the Greens are plainly mad the reaction by many is to discount the importance of sensible environmental management policies.
Is that the case though? While they hammer on pointlessly about carbon and climate fairytales plus various far-left approaches to destroying the economy, people are still aware that there are genuine environmental concerns. The problem is that the Green Party sees enormous political patronage of populist econonsense and falls in line to collect the votes of propagandised sheeple. As long as you realise that Green means Red and that there's no real Green around, all is well.
allergictocheese said:
The greens are not trying to form government. Their policies are not realistic, nor do I think they're all supposed to be. What they do do is garner a level of support that keeps the main parties understanding that green issues are important and need to be addressed.
The Green Party is a bona fide pressure group over environmental issues, in the same way UKIP are with the EU and immigration.
Taking any of them too literally or seriously is unnecessary.
Nail - head.The Green Party is a bona fide pressure group over environmental issues, in the same way UKIP are with the EU and immigration.
Taking any of them too literally or seriously is unnecessary.
You always need an extreme 'other side of the fence' view to keep things balanced. It's all part of a healthy democracy which we enjoy in the UK.
turbobloke said:
- All elements of the sex industry will be decriminalised, and prostitutes could no longer be discriminated against in child custody cases.
- The Greens also want to see “significantly reduced” levels of imprisonment, with jail only used when there is a “substantial risk of a further grave crime” or in cases where offences are so horrific that offenders would be at risk of vigilantes. Prisoners will be given the vote.
- SATS, early years tests and league tables will be abolished, and “creative” subjects given equal parity to the “academic”.
- Football clubs would be owned by co-operatives and not traded on the stock markets.
- Assisted dying will be legalised, and the law on abortion liberalised to allow nurses to carry it out. Special levies on private hospitals that employ staff who were trained on the NHS.
- It will be a criminal offence, with “significant fines”, to stop a woman from breastfeeding in a restaurant or shop, and formula milk will be more tightly regulated.
- In order to prevent “overpopulation” burdening the earth, the state will provide free condoms and fund research for new contraceptives.
- Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”.
allergictocheese said:
The greens are not trying to form government.
There was another aim alongside that which you omitted, curiously. When included, your point isn't valid.Earlier I said:
...seeks Government or seeks to contribute to Government...
allergictocheese said:
Their policies are not realistic, nor do I think they're all supposed to be.
Dream on, as the Greens are doing. Do you not realise what their poster boys and possibly girls are pushing for with all the sincerity of true belief?Maurice Strong as Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and still plugging away at the UN said:
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
Dr Reed F Noss of the Wildlands Project said:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
Louis Proyect of Columbia University said:
The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.
There are people in the driving seat of Greenism who think the above, and the manifesto, are brilliant ideas ripe for implementation.
allergictocheese said:
What they do do is garner a level of support that keeps the main parties understanding that green issues are important and need to be addressed.
So naive it's beyond comprehension.allergictocheese said:
The Green Party is a bona fide pressure group over environmental issues, in the same way UKIP are with the EU and immigration.
allergictocheese said:
Taking any of them too literally or seriously is unnecessary.
It would be positively lethal for millions.DrDoofenshmirtz said:
Nail - head.
Not really.BJG1 said:
turbobloke said:
- All elements of the sex industry will be decriminalised, and prostitutes could no longer be discriminated against in child custody cases. [b] See where you're coming from, but potential for a huge explosion of the trafficking that already exists. Can't say I've ever heard of discrimination against prostitutes... [\b]
- The Greens also want to see “significantly reduced” levels of imprisonment, with jail only used when there is a “substantial risk of a further grave crime” or in cases where offences are so horrific that offenders would be at risk of vigilantes. Prisoners will be given the vote. [b] Considering the majority considers current deterrents too ineffective and soft, can't say I can see wide support for someone who's nicked a grand from a shop walking away with a new piece of jewellery around their ankle. [\b]
- SATS, early years tests and league tables will be abolished, and “creative” subjects given equal parity to the “academic”. [b] What does this actually mean? We already give sufficient weight to art and creativity - do we really want charcoal sketching to be considered as important as being able to spell? [\b]
- Football clubs would be owned by co-operatives and not traded on the stock markets. [b] Why? What possible benefit would justify dicking about with a specific subset of businesses within a specific industry? How much will it cost to compulsory purchase the Premier League and give it to Tom and Danny from the Red Lion to run? [\b]
- Assisted dying will be legalised, and the law on abortion liberalised to allow nurses to carry it out. Special levies on private hospitals that employ staff who were trained on the NHS. [b] Assisted dying, yes. Can't see why nurses need to be able to do abortions - what problem is that solving? As for charging levies based on where staff were trained - utterly ridiculous. Nothing stopping the NHS putting tie in clauses to justify training costs... [\b]
- It will be a criminal offence, with “significant fines”, to stop a woman from breastfeeding in a restaurant or shop, and formula milk will be more tightly regulated. [b] Another populist sop - as if it's that big a problem. Oh, and why does formula milk need more regulation? Once again, can't see the problem their trying to solve. Unless it's a stigmatisation of parents who either cannot, or will not, breastfeed (my partner couldn't, which is apparently very common - is she a bad mother because of that?) [\b]
- In order to prevent “overpopulation” burdening the earth, the state will provide free condoms and fund research for new contraceptives. [b] State already gives free contraception. Medical companies are constantly introducing new contraceptives - how much has been spent on the 'male pill'? Do we really need the state paying that? [\b]
- Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”. [b] Of course, we have nothing anyone else wants, no one in the World dislikes us, and Putin doesn't send over big bad bringer of death regularly... [\b]
Thats without the costs and downsides that practical assessment of the statements shows will be necessary - cutting our noses off to spite our faces.
Sway said:
See where you're coming from, but potential for a huge explosion of the trafficking that already exists. Can't say I've ever heard of discrimination against prostitutes...
Considering the majority considers current deterrents too ineffective and soft, can't say I can see wide support for someone who's nicked a grand from a shop walking away with a new piece of jewellery around their ankle.
Have a look at how the criminal justice system works in Norway, where they have significantly lower crime rates, significantly lower reoffending rates and considerably 'softer' sentencing. Prison should be about rehabilitation. Look at the USA for a good example of harsher deterrents not working
What does this actually mean? We already give sufficient weight to art and creativity - do we really want charcoal sketching to be considered as important as being able to spell?
I more agreed with the abolishment of SATs. Private schools don't bother with them and I don't think tests and exams are the best way to educate. As for the last point, I'd just like to see looser curriculums and more specific areas of study introduced. More variance in what people are taught would be a positive as would more ability to choose what you wish to learn.
Why? What possible benefit would justify dicking about with a specific subset of businesses within a specific industry? How much will it cost to compulsory purchase the Premier League and give it to Tom and Danny from the Red Lion to run?
See Germany. 51% of shares have to be owned by fans - ticket prices are much, much lower as a result and Sport shouldn't exist in such a capitalist market IMO.
Assisted dying, yes. Can't see why nurses need to be able to do abortions - what problem is that solving? As for charging levies based on where staff were trained - utterly ridiculous. Nothing stopping the NHS putting tie in clauses to justify training costs...
I'm not sure on the abortion one, assisted dying was my biggest here. I don't see the problem with nurses conducting abortions though. I think if poaching is a problem where the NHS pays for training the private sector should have to pay for that. I don't know how large a problem it is though. Probably not as bad as us pinching Eastern European medical professionals and leaving their home countries screwed.
Another populist sop - as if it's that big a problem. Oh, and why does formula milk need more regulation? Once again, can't see the problem their trying to solve. Unless it's a stigmatisation of parents who either cannot, or will not, breastfeed (my partner couldn't, which is apparently very common - is she a bad mother because of that?)
I left this one in by accident
I disagree entirely with the formula milk part. I don't think the breastfeeding thing is a big deal but I do think mothers should be able to where they wish.
State already gives free contraception. Medical companies are constantly introducing new contraceptives - how much has been spent on the 'male pill'? Do we really need the state paying that?
Giving more free contraception would be good. Developing it as a State would make sense if it's cheaper than buying from private companies to then give away - I don't know if it is or not.
Of course, we have nothing anyone else wants, no one in the World dislikes us, and Putin doesn't send over big bad bringer of death regularly...
I agreed with the spirit of this one really, vastly reduce the military budget, abandon Trident, stay neutral in all conflicts. I don't quite agree with the extreme to which the Greens want it
Considering the majority considers current deterrents too ineffective and soft, can't say I can see wide support for someone who's nicked a grand from a shop walking away with a new piece of jewellery around their ankle.
Have a look at how the criminal justice system works in Norway, where they have significantly lower crime rates, significantly lower reoffending rates and considerably 'softer' sentencing. Prison should be about rehabilitation. Look at the USA for a good example of harsher deterrents not working
What does this actually mean? We already give sufficient weight to art and creativity - do we really want charcoal sketching to be considered as important as being able to spell?
I more agreed with the abolishment of SATs. Private schools don't bother with them and I don't think tests and exams are the best way to educate. As for the last point, I'd just like to see looser curriculums and more specific areas of study introduced. More variance in what people are taught would be a positive as would more ability to choose what you wish to learn.
Why? What possible benefit would justify dicking about with a specific subset of businesses within a specific industry? How much will it cost to compulsory purchase the Premier League and give it to Tom and Danny from the Red Lion to run?
See Germany. 51% of shares have to be owned by fans - ticket prices are much, much lower as a result and Sport shouldn't exist in such a capitalist market IMO.
Assisted dying, yes. Can't see why nurses need to be able to do abortions - what problem is that solving? As for charging levies based on where staff were trained - utterly ridiculous. Nothing stopping the NHS putting tie in clauses to justify training costs...
I'm not sure on the abortion one, assisted dying was my biggest here. I don't see the problem with nurses conducting abortions though. I think if poaching is a problem where the NHS pays for training the private sector should have to pay for that. I don't know how large a problem it is though. Probably not as bad as us pinching Eastern European medical professionals and leaving their home countries screwed.
Another populist sop - as if it's that big a problem. Oh, and why does formula milk need more regulation? Once again, can't see the problem their trying to solve. Unless it's a stigmatisation of parents who either cannot, or will not, breastfeed (my partner couldn't, which is apparently very common - is she a bad mother because of that?)
I left this one in by accident
I disagree entirely with the formula milk part. I don't think the breastfeeding thing is a big deal but I do think mothers should be able to where they wish. State already gives free contraception. Medical companies are constantly introducing new contraceptives - how much has been spent on the 'male pill'? Do we really need the state paying that?
Giving more free contraception would be good. Developing it as a State would make sense if it's cheaper than buying from private companies to then give away - I don't know if it is or not.
Of course, we have nothing anyone else wants, no one in the World dislikes us, and Putin doesn't send over big bad bringer of death regularly...
I agreed with the spirit of this one really, vastly reduce the military budget, abandon Trident, stay neutral in all conflicts. I don't quite agree with the extreme to which the Greens want it
TTwiggy said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Randy Winkman said:
I might well vote Green next time. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what a lot of their policies are since they wont win the election or my constituency. But it's way of registering a vote for a particular general principle and against the other parties. I'm sure lots of people will vote UKIP on the same basis and I've no problem with that.
Why not just cut to the chase ans vote for The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? That is after all, the Green's particular general principle.As the poster you quote alludes to, the Greens will never form a government, and I doubt anyone on here would want them to, but I'm happy for them to have some influence on the mainstream parties in a similar fashion to Ukip, as, despite being (generally) a Tory voter myself, I'm not happy with the current lurch to the right.
BJG, cheers for sorting my formatting! 
I can easily empathise with your thinking, I just disagree!
I won't go through it point by point, but my view is that as you've said there are concerns with a lot of the examples you've given that you nominally support - and the vast majority are tiny causes that are fairly irrelevant in day to day life.
What I would say is that using an example from a notably different culture (that includes the US) as a rationale for a seismic (costly and risky) shift in approach is not the right way to be approaching this. I far prefer an open minded pilot/experiment approach to determine the right solution instead of starting with a solution than applying it to our problems.
Oh, and I've never yet found an example of the State delivering anything in a more cost effective manner than the (appropriately regulated) private sector!
I can easily empathise with your thinking, I just disagree!
I won't go through it point by point, but my view is that as you've said there are concerns with a lot of the examples you've given that you nominally support - and the vast majority are tiny causes that are fairly irrelevant in day to day life.
What I would say is that using an example from a notably different culture (that includes the US) as a rationale for a seismic (costly and risky) shift in approach is not the right way to be approaching this. I far prefer an open minded pilot/experiment approach to determine the right solution instead of starting with a solution than applying it to our problems.
Oh, and I've never yet found an example of the State delivering anything in a more cost effective manner than the (appropriately regulated) private sector!
Randy Winkman said:
Thanks. That's correct - they are called the "Green" party and for that reason I might well vote for them. I wont vote for something called the "Communist" party because I don't want to register a tick against their name.
They are called the "Green"party because they couldn't get away with being called the New Communist Party or The Evironmentalist a totalitarian Party. It's a marketing ploy. However, wolf in sheeps clothing is the best description because they are a political party based around hard left totalitarian ideology.
Hoofy said:
Something about people not working for a living was one of the stupid things
Technically they are correct.Famous economists predicted that humans would reduce hours in work as more automation came in, so instead of working doing we could spend time doing better things.
They just didn't figure on the plebs pissing their money away in white cars and Iphones
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff